@fleschler
"Audiophiles are Snobs" Youtube features an idiot! He states, with no equivocation, that $5,000 and $10,000 speakers sound equally good and a $500 and $5,000 integrated amp sound equally good. He is either deaf or a liar or both!
I think you miss Darko's point. He made no unequivocal statements that generalised that way. He certainly listens to and describes differences between gear—specific comparisons, not general ones—and he doesn't offer measurements. Try watching a bit more.
There is a site filled with posters like him called Audio Science Review. If a reasonable person posts, they immediately tear him down, using selected words and/or sentences from the reasonable poster as100% proof that the audiophile is dumb and stupid with his money. They also occasionally state that the high end audio equipment/cable/tweak sellers are criminals who commit fraud on the public. They often state that if something scientifically measures better, then it sounds better. They give no credence to unmeasurable sound factors like PRAT and Ambiance. Some of the posters music choices range from rap to hip hop and anything pop oriented created in the past from 1995.
Have any of audiogon (or any other reasonable audio forum site) posters encountered this horrible group of miscreants?
Although Darko has done room measurements and room treatment, ASR is quite different to Darko in other respects. ASR would probably say they are measurements-first, but as Amir has posted here, he certainly listens to headphones and speakers. At times he notes subjective responses that don't exactly line up with measurements (iirc a Buchardt speaker that didn't sound as good as it graphed, and a Wilson that was the opposite). Darko says he is music-first, and doesn't do measurements on gear at all.
As for musical taste, ASR skews pretty old (compared to me :-) and the 'music we are listening to' thread/s are full of stuff may parents recall (but generally more mainstream). Absolutely not limited to post-1995. Almost the opposite. There is an electronic music thread which is much better. Amir himself appears to have quite varied taste based on his testing playlist (no hyperpop or glitchcore, but a fair few good modern composers and groups that wouldn't put me off).
Darko of course has great taste in music, which is the main reason I watch his stuff.
As for tribalism, audio Taliban and such, sure there's unfortunate internet aggro and posturing. You'll even find threads where people can't cope with descriptors like 'warm' for frequency response, no matter how patiently others posters explain common terminology. But STEM-educated people don't always have language skills. And yes, if I said that on ASR I'd get an instant slap from their mods and some penalty points to go with it. So I don't.
|
|
Oh typos, no editing? Oh well …
|
|
@amir_asr
You are arguing against the very nature of how your perception works. Not only experts in audio will disagree with you, so will those in the medical community who research the same. No way your brain has the capacity to remember every bit of fidelity in music you listen to hours and days later. It is impossible.
I think the subject of audio memory is fascinating. And somewhat misunderstood. We certainly have very high bandwidth short-term memory (the type that works with fast/uninterrupted switching). We also have long term audio memory (lower bandwidth so our brains can store more of it). We have intermediate levels as well as different encoding and storage processes (I'd have to dig up relevant papers) but these two are enough for this discussion.
I had an interesting experience a while back that cased me to re-assess two aspects of catechism: that amps that measure similarly well sound the same when performing within their limits; and that longer term audio memory is uninformative.
I replaced one integrated amp (Krell KAV-300iL) with another (Micromega M150) when the former was damaged beyond repair. Standard suite of measurements for both with similar performance at normal listening levels, etc. Both class AB and similar output. Listening sighted and subjectively the Micromega resented different in stereo imaging (less width/depth) and bass timbre. The vendor recommended the dreaded break-in (I'm ok with that, my ear/brain needs it at least) and I'd get used to it, obviously.
But I didn't. When I played new music it sounded pretty good. But when I played familiar stuff, it sounded 'wrong'. I can't tell you which was more accurate, of course that's not possible. But, based on long-term audio memory, the subjective impressions persisted over a few months of listening and my brain didn't adjust to the different sound. The old amp would work for 10-20 minutes or so before static built up and I could compare every now and then after a fashion.
As the Micromega had XLR-out, I bought a secondhand power amp (Krell KAV-2250) and plugged it in. Stereo image and bass returned. So same source, same DAC/pre (the Micromega) but different power amp stage. I ran some measurements (Fuzzmeasure with mic at listening position) to see if euphonic second-harmonic distortion (or similar) was sweetening the bass. Not visible. Also ran room correction (Sonarworks) for FR and left-right imbalance. Not that either.
That leaves a bunch of more esoteric stuff. The Micromega has a different power supply and likely more negative feedback. Some think the latter affects stereo imaging. On the bass side, Krell tend to go overboard on the power transformer (2KVA in the 2250). I'll speculate that the room (with some lateral/oblique mode nulls around 70-90 Hz) pushes against the speaker, and the Micromega doesn't have the current to push back as effectively. But, speculation is all.
Anyway, my takeaway is that long term audio memory is a more complex story, it certainly has resilience and differentiation in my experience (but the efficacy for a reviewer who listens to many system will be a different story). Bass is pretty straightforward (watts are good, but current is better, if you'll excuse the vernacular). Stereo image is the complex product of many factors, starting with the recording, but I wouldn't rule out the amp-speaker-room system as contributor.
According to ASR lore, this can be explained by sighted bias. I was (weirdly) biased against my new amp (I know, a bit contradictory). What I could hear, consistently over several months, was neurosis. While that logic is effectively hermetic, why not test, controlling for visual bias? Well, logistics (I'd need a comparator box to fast-switch, or a friend to slow-switch, or similar) so while I pondered the possibilities a storm took out the Micromega (lighting blew up the water main and fried everything on the ethernet network). Can't win.
|
@amir_asr
How do you know this take away is true? Better yet, how can you prove this take away is true? Where is the proof point? At no time did you perform a controlled test like I mentioned in the video, correct? Without it, your conclusions are only yours. They present no value on the topic at hand. Indeed, they go against the consensus of audio research community which has tested these theories.
I don’t know. That’s why I called it "my takeaway" and not "my evidence" or "my proof". I was quite clear that they were sighted, subjective observations. And that I made limited tests for some possible confounding factors. I also used the word "speculation". I don’t know why you often appear to argue with straw men, and labour your talking points when they are already accounted for, but I don’t want to criticise tone, style or even comprehension as that’s counter-productive.
If you care to address what I’ve said, feel free to tell me which of these have zero bearing on the topic at hand and/or go against the consensus of audio (or psycho-acoustic) research, and why: 1) long term audio memory is a more complex story, 2) bass is pretty straightforward, or 3) stereo image is the complex product of many factors (which the amp-speaker-room system contributes to). Those are the words you responded to.
Please remember that all of us also exist in your shoes as well as ours. I like you hear things that later realize where not there. Have this happen to you enough times and you get sober and realize your perception is not what you think it is. That your intuition can be so wrong in audio.
I agree, and I’ve certainly had those experiences working with sound. Many times. But what about things we hear, that we later hear again, and again, accounting as best we can for the limitations of our perception and judgement? Now of course it’s possible that unconscious factors rather than actual sonics caused the difference I perceived between those devices (for example) but that’s also speculative. We can also differentiate to some degree between perception and intuition, especially with training and experience. The working hypothesis that every time we hear something unexpected, we are drunk, neurotic or hypnotised by marketing is an over-simplification. I’m happy to leave you with that.
|
@fleschler
OldHvyMec at ASR makes cogent and experienced statements concerning "ALL things BREAK-IN." He has the reputation to make that assertion, especially in relation to cables/wires and equipment of all types (including audio).
HarmonicTHD member asserts "Cables are not mechanics. There is no wear, nor Burn-In, nor Break-In."
Then JSmith and Axo1989 talk about pancakes, off-topic and irrelevant.
This is a typical ASR dialogue.
Another poster introduced the pancakes, Reference to “moist” and “warm” is banter about descriptive terminology. Not irrelevant at all (I mentioned the ASR thread about “warm” in a post in this thread). That thread is about this thread, not about cables. You can join dots, surely?
|
|
@whipsaw
C’mon, Amir. As you know, Pass Labs amps have been very well received by audiophiles over decades now. They clearly have sound signatures that are pleasing to the ears of many listeners, and the suggestion that a meaningful percentage of those reactions would likely change if only those listeners were to A/B their amps with those that measure with less distortion is dubious, at best. And the same could be said of high-quality tube amplifiers.
To be clear, I don’t doubt that some listeners would arrive at conclusions that would be at odds with their long-standing, stated preferences. But given the vast weight of the feedback from audiophiles who apparently prefer amps which measure with some distortion in the audible frequencies, it is, in my view, highly improbable that their choices are primarily due to marketing-related biases.
I think ASR is—to a degree—caught in its own hermetic logic here.
One the one hand, Amir does ignore Toole’s advice that speakers should be listened to comparatively for evaluation to be meaningful. Even something as simple as setting up a curtain and turntable and enlisting helpers from his cohort of followers is dismissed. Instead he does measurements first, preps some PEQ filters based on them and on his experience, then compares "blind" original and EQ’d playback through the device under test (just one speaker). Nothing wrong with most of this (except, I would listen and take notes first—as another Kippel user, Erin of Erin’s Audio Corner does—that argument has run a few times on ASR). But I can AB between EQ and original and hear differences (most can) and that doesn’t substitute for comparative testing of (as Toole recommends) three or four speakers. Apart from the magnitude argument, it’s unclear how one type of listening is kosher and another isn’t, but that’s a longer discussion and requires more than ventilation of talking points.
But when it comes to amplifiers, ASR rarely listens, with the general justification that magnitude of differences are too small to differentiate (with some exceptions). As you can see in this thread all listening (that isn’t done by ASR with partial protocols) is routinely dismissed as sighted bias, expectation bias, focus bias etc (you too can play bias Whac-A-Mole). This despite the fact that double-blind ABX isn’t logistically straightforward. And dismissing well-defined subjective listening protocols like those published by B&K or B&O, or the expert listening we use daily to produce music. The escape clause is of course the null test, but that's also a longer conversation.
In cases where people do make a good-faith attempt to try DBT, it can also degenerate into a shambolic series of gotchas. Before my time at ASR I nonetheless read a long and winding thread where enthusiast/reviewer GoldenSound tried to respond to a challenge Amir made to compare DACs. Amir managed to misunderstand straightforward logical concepts like one vs many wrt comparison criteria, using that to reset his conditions halfway and eventually doxxed and banned his antagonist, and possibly some other posters in that conversation. I modified my appreciation of ASR ethics based on that thread. We are all flawed human beings though, so I enjoy ASR for what it offers and tolerate the weaknesses.
|
@amir_asr
To position this as me against Dr. Toole’s teachings is very much out of line. Nothing remotely is true in that regard. I simply don’t have the resources or time to do this kind of testing on every speaker that lands here.
I’m not positioning you as "against" Toole, simply stating that you ignore that specific recommendation. Ignore in the sense of "intentionally disregard" which is what you’ve specifically stated here. If the semantics don’t suit you, change ignore to "doesn’t follow".
Your business model is based on rapid testing and fast turnover and of course that has advantages and disadvantages. As this thread started by conflating ASR with Darko, let’s consider that he takes some weeks to listen to and test a speaker. Now—leaving aside potential flouncing about objectivist vs subjectivist approaches, relative value and the like, please—you could take that time, but you choose not to. Perfectly valid decision (and you’d test far fewer speakers). But it’s your turnover preference that precludes turntable testing, or other comparative methods. So ASR has both value, and weaknesses. We appear to agree.
I highly encourage such efforts. I provided speakers for the second phase above to the organizer and happy to do so for anyone who likes to conduct them.
The turntable will be interesting (albeit just a handful of posts so far, and no progress since March?)
I once asked my doctor if he could help me with research into weaknesses of blind testing. He just about threw me out of his office!
I’m not sure about the value of your anecdote about your doctor. I’d prefer you addressed my question about your allegations against my earlier post, for example.
Finally, thanks for the invitation to post at ASR, I’d never thought of that. 🙄😂😉
|
@amir_asr
It was a spin and a debating stunt which I called you on.
The part I asked you to respond to was your statement that my "takeaway" after amplifier listening was contrary to audio (and psycho-acoustic) research. The points I re-iterated were quite sound, but I was interested in your counterpoint (as opposed to your talking points).
What you did was elevate the listening test to something it is not, then complain that it doesn’t follow the extensive protocol Dr. Toole used for research. That was improper and I responded to you as such.
Relax mate, I’m not trying to trick you with wicked (sorry, "improper") sophistry. Nor am I running a comprehensive analysis of ASR test methodology, with or without "elevation". No need for all the mansplaining.
The simple point of my earlier post is that we can listen to gear, with some experience and awareness of the pitfalls, without always following the strictest of protocols and still glean meaningful information. I described doing it upthread, you do it yourself with loudspeakers (and you say you think it has value).
Another debating stunt. I do not run a "business" to have a model.
Is there anything to be gained from this semantic quibbling? I’m sure you know that in English "business" has several meanings, including "an activity one is engaged in" and isn’t restricted to commercial activity. If you don’t like the semantics of "business model" just think of it as "modus operandi" or "general approach". You know what I mean. Argue the substance.
And it is not like you have shown any of those editors that hold on to gear perform comparative blind testing of speakers. They have the time according to you but waste it away with who knows what. You want to complain about something, complain about that.
Pure whataboutism. How about those reviewers, eh? Come on.
|
@prof
So what do I do with the fact that I actually did audition a few Revel speakers (which were very competent sounding as predicted) and yet still heavily preferred the Devore? Well, it could be that I happen to be one of the outliers, and even in blind testing I’d select the Devores. Less likely, but possible.
I think that’s one of the interesting things about listening to gear (especially speakers). We have the standard measurements for frequency response (FR) on and off-axis, which are a foundation of Harmon research and a staple of Stereophile Reviews. We have the Kippel robotic measurement systems automating that process and outputting various results, including CEA2034 with its implicit room model, reflection calculations, sound power and directivity indices.
Associated with these we have measurement of linear and non-linear distortions (harmonic, intermodulation and compression, for example).
Also part of Stereophile review and presented (albeit roughly and without as much understanding) by ASR we have time domain measurements, including step response and cumulative spectral decay. Some German magazines (I’ll have to refresh my memory) publish a spectrogram similar to the latter but somewhat different in its parameters and presentation.
Then there are supplementary measurements of attributes that may affect sonic presentation including cabinet vibration. And at the design level we have more sophisticated laser tools to study vibration and movement, along with mathematical models to predict and optimise behaviour of most design characteristics.
All of this stuff provides a wealth of information about speaker behaviour and performance and likely does tells us how they will sound. Except we as humans can’t integrate all of that meaningfully to get all the way there in terms of predictive sonics, so often we have surprises when we listen. We can also hear very subtle things—notably timing and timbre—that don’t stand out in measurements but affect our perception and enjoyment of sound.
Many STEM-educated people relate better to numbers than words, and within that category we have people who relate to numbers in two dimension (like the FR graph) versus three or four (like time domain and spatial behaviour of sound). Personally, I find FR-obsessives a bit dreary and unimaginative. But my personality and value type biases notwithstanding, there is the—entirely valid— argument that the all is captured in the sweep and the Fourier transform gives us both frequency and time domain information complete. Sure, but as a human I can’t read FR and see time. If we want to tease out subtle sonics we have to dive very deep into all the measurements (and a fair bit deeper than an ASR review). Of course many speaker designers do this.
That’s one very good reason why we listen. Our ear-brain integrates and perceives the sonics. And naturally, our musical taste affect our reproduction preferences and vice versa. But there’s no need for the self-flagellating, judgemental argument ad lazarum of our friends at ASR. If we practice, do our best to avoid subjective listening pitfalls and avoid telling ourselves fairy tales, we can hear meaningfully and use both measurements and subjective listening to assemble gear that gives us enjoyable sound.
|
@prof
It was closed because Amir prefers his site to be about audio gear discussions rather than skirmishes over different web sites. He’d prefer that the emphasis NOT be on attacking other web sites, including audiogon. Funny you are trying to spin that as close minded or dogmatic, while people here continue to attack ASR.
I hope you don’t take offence, but I’m a bit less sanguine about that. ASR’s founder closed their corresponding thread a short time after my last reply to him, and more specifically after @laoman posted Darko’s letters page including his exchange with Amir. My experience is that he often closes threads when he realises his views won’t be the primary focus or won’t prevail.
In the thread on that exchange at ASR, I suggested to Amir that going for the jugular against Darko’s previous guest (Cameron aka GoldenSound, with whom Amir has previously engaged, demonised and banned on ASR) was tactless and made him look like a bit of a nutter (I think Darko likely concluded that an hour or so conversing with Amir would be less than edifying and demurred). Amir said he considered a more tactful offer too much of a compromise. Darko asked if being right was really worth the aggro. And so on. I doubt Amir wanted to re-visit that episode here.
He’s not shutting down discussions between "subjectivists" and "objectivists" on ASR: there are tons of threads on the subject, even stickied threads that are endless debates.
The sticky thread on measurements at ASR (for example) is a declared catch-all/resting place for posts (moved by moderators) that originally appear in reviews and an attempt to contain criticism/discussion of ASR methodology. Sensible to do that I think, but I wouldn’t interpret it as encouraging said discussion. It’s more the case that objectivist vs subjectivist debate would take constant vigilance to suppress, and that thread is an easier option.
But keep these comments in context, there's a fair bit of good info and discussion at ASR. It's a rough with the smooth thing for me.
|
I vaguely recall @juanmanuelfangioii posting at ASR but I may be misremembering as the account isn’t findable (although possibly deleted). It’s a memorable user name though. YouTube or Darko or somewhere else perhaps. I’ve asked what was ban-worthy in my posts here but received no answer. I doubt there’s a conversation to be had.
@laoman unfortunately I have also observed the behaviours you describe from ASR’s founder, I’ve even discussed directly, as noted above. I just think it’s a mistake to carry on like that, a bit of humility and willingness to consider others goes a long way.
|
@djones51
I have seen this stated more than once "Science is observation then measurement". It's not really how it works, it would be "verifiable observation". Science has no interest in measuring every non verified observation. ...
Verifying observations a priori isn't scientific though. We develop theoretical knowledge by observation, hypothesis and experimentation in that order.
Initial observation is how we come up with hypothesis in the first place. If you filter observation based on pre-existing theory you can't form new hypotheses. The science is in comparing the prediction of the hypothesis to the result of the experiment.
Of course, myths survive partly because falsifying non-existent things is tricky. I'm not going too far down that rabbit hole this morning.
|
ASR uses science in the title but really reflects an engineering culture. Amir himself says they (generally) don’t do science, but measurements, which is correct.
My day job is in ecology, so I work with scientists, engineers, comms people, policy and legal and so on. In my experience science and engineering cultures differ: scientists observe reality, form hypotheses and test them via experimentation; engineers learn complex rule systems and solve problems by applying those rules. I think that’s why the core ASR dialectic is so linear-mechanistic. It’s all about the rules. Curiosity, less so.
I also like the old saying "in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they aren't". The interesting people at ASR are these with enough experience and intelligence to see (and see the humour in) this.
|
@tonywinga
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The best humour, so many layers!
|
@prof
I can see your point of view regarding ASR.
I don’t know if you have been a member long enough to have seen some of my skirmishes with Amir and crew. One got a bit crazy. But for me it’s always water-under-the-bridge.
Nice post of yours directly above this one.
Re the quoted one, thanks. I think I first posted there around Christmas time. I read reviews a few years prior. Didn’t find your user name but give me a clue and I’ll follow up :-) Best to avoid heavy baggage I agree.
|
@crymeanaudioriver
in audio we are well beyond the observation and hypothesis stage. However you are wrong or at least simplifying. The hypothethis may be as simple as you are hearing things. The scientific side of audio has already stated that and tested it often. ...
In terms of general audio theory theory, much is established—I doubt we’ll be discovering parallel universes there—in terms of psycho-acoustics a great deal also. But sonic observations of new speakers happen all the time. And "you are hearing things" is an inadequately worded hypothesis, we have to be more specific.
|
@fair
Online "social credit" experiment gone wrong I guess ...
Interesting that it wasn't always that way. I noticed after joining there around Christmas time that new members with a neutral or subjectivist leaning could be criticised in almost any terms. I'm pretty ambidextrous on that divide but was attacked early on for being "nihilist" and "woke". Impressively oxymoronic! Responding didn't work out of course, as moderation is asymmetrical. Two-week ban from the thread. Later on I reported a couple of bigoted posts from a pair of high post count old timers with many 'likes'. Rookie mistake, earned me a two week holiday from the forum. These days, ASR is a self-confessed Nazi bar. Moderator claimed they didn't really want to shut down and erase an innocuous LBGTQ+ artist discussion thread, but couldn't manage the old-timer backlash. I'm sure they could have corrected the drift to intolerance, they just didn't want to hard enough.
|
@cd318
At best they are subjectivist entertainment, nothing more. At worst they are little more than a collusive practice with mutual benefits for the manufactures, dealers and reviewers.
Re "at worst" I agree. But "at best" they are informative descriptions of the sonic characteristics of the devices reviewed.
I’m not a former/converted subjectivist, however, so I don’t have recovery PTSD to contend with or commiserate over.
|
@fair
Obviously, Amir sees that. He knows what's going on. Why doesn't he put an end to that? My best guess is that because Amir is an experienced Microsoft executive, who knows how to use others to take down those who could damage his standing.
Amir needs these loud regulars, so that they could take down those inconvenient members who are asking "wrong" questions and are bringing in "wrong" information.
Amir employs other stratagems of corporate politics as well: badmouthing other prominent audio gear reviewers behind their backs is one of those. I guess it must have worked well for him during his previous career.
I have similar impressions also. As I've worked in bureaucracy, I'm somewhat familiar the stratagems of the managerialist (now they are my clients rather than my superiors or colleagues, which is an easier relationship).
ASR is clearly Amir's retirement hobby. Much is made of expertise and non-commercial status, but he is a self-taught user of his measuring tools and receives material consideration from a number of manufacturers of devices he reviews, so neither claim is entirely solid.
|
@cd318
We don’t need any more folks becoming disgruntled with the endless review fuelled ladder climbing shenanigans that eventually don’t lead to anywhere, do we?
I’m sure that sites like ASR can certainly help when it comes to audiophile post traumatic stress disorders. 🙂
ASR as audioholics anonymous? It probably is (with all that likeness implies).
Although I do wish damaged abstainers like our crying friend would stop at 12 steps instead of going for 256.
|
@cd318
So you are saying Stereophile receives gifts @axo1989 ?
No I haven’t made any claim about Stereophile. I’ll give you some time to edit your post or reformulate your question and check a bit later.
|
@crymeanaudioriver
1) What material consideration do you speak of? Proof or just making that up?
ASR receives review samples which are not returned, meaning they are gifts. Amir posted photograph/s and acknowledged same in a discussion thread recently. I was unaware of the scope of that consideration, and said so. In the same thread ’master contributor’ @restorer-john recommended that a register be maintained for transparency, and that statements of interest posted with reviews be more specific/informative. For example ’supplied by manufacturer’ is often noted, but ’gift’ is not. Amir did some handwaving, but didn’t address the substantive issues ... @restorer-john was attacked by a moderator, and the usual ’out-of-line’ bluster was dished out (the moderator later apologised, which was novel).
2) Amir said that he started working with the AP equipment professionally, I think at Microsoft, so that statement appears false as well. Most of us are self taught on much of the equipment we use. That is what owners manuals, videos, and other resources are for. When our results match others results, we know we are using it properly. He also clearly has a close relationship with Audio Precision, perhaps Klippel too, so this second statement by you also appears to be made up and not factual or relevant.
We all pick up skills using tools in our vocations. Formal training is another thing. You’ve no doubt seen (or should see) the amusing YT videos featuring beginner Amir asking AP personnel newbie questions, and their commendably polite responses (yes, after his time at MS). Close relationship? Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
But you’re on step 50 it seems, 206 to go ...
|
@prof
I found the Devor O/96 does better than most speakers in maintaining a sense of thickness, heft and size from the bottom to the top frequencies, so even drum cymbals and bells seem to have more life-sized weight and presence. That’s one thing that blew me away listening to the drum solo track I often use as a test. The MBL omni speakers (which I’ve owned) also can have a similar quality - drum cymbals sound more like the large resonating discs they are rather than the small bits of bright spots lighting up in a soundstage of most speakers.
That’s an evocative description. Amusing too (given the topic of this thread) that I get a good idea of what you mean even though you are using descriptive verbal language.
I enjoy my speakers and somewhat like your JAs admire their definition and clarity along with the way they present the holographic stereo image. But they do the thing you describe as pear shaped (that’s derogatory in Australian vernacular :-) Perhaps because I often listen to electronic and other synthetic/assembled music the apparent size of cymbals (for example) didn't occur to me up to now. That certain speakers do it differently is pretty interesting though.
|
@crymeanaudioriver I thought I was replying to @cd318 so my mistake. I’m not so interested in your aggressive communication style so don’t expect an extended discussion. I’ve given you enough to go on, you can figure out what material interest means and how it may apply in this context perhaps, if you are sufficiently curious. The number and scope of gifts to ASR certainly crosses the usual thresholds for declaration in the regulatory sector that I have experience in. It may or may not give rise to bias, the question discussed in the thread I referred to was transparency. ASR is an informal non-profit public interest advocacy group, so may have no specific legal responsibility (US jurisdiction is not my specialty in any case) but claims somewhat unique circumstances and should follow through (in my view) as a precaution and a matter of ethics. Deflecting via some whataboutism makes no difference to these issues.
|
@crymeanaudioriver
one minute you are an expert in engineering, one minute you are an expert in accounting. That is quite the skill set.
Bizarre gaslighting. I’ve claimed neither.
If ASR / Amir were to start selling the devices, than [sic] you could claim it was a gift.
Bizarre logic. A gift is received. Subsequent sale has no bearing at all.
As ASR sells nothing, markets nothing, it would be a hard stretch to consider the units sent as "input" to their end product.
Their end product is published testing, a supply of review units could certainly be considered an input. But I didn’t state that, my expertise is legal/regulatory (not accounting) and I said—correctly—material consideration. My recommendation was not that they shouldn't accept review units, but that they operate transparently—declaring gift vs loan and maintaining a register of the former. What they do is their business of course, but how I regard their unusual ethical claims is mine.
So 55 steps down now, 201 to go. Don’t expect me to follow along though, your journey is your own. 😉
|
@crymeanaudioriver
this is just one of many posts where you are trying to put forth that you have technical chops
"The part I asked you to respond to was your statement that my "takeaway" after amplifier listening was contrary to audio (and psycho-acoustic) research. The points I re-iterated were quite sound, but I was interested in your counterpoint (as opposed to your talking points)."
Bizarre gasllighting again: you interpret a considered opinion to be a claim to a technical qualification?
But by your own admission, you are just legal/regulatory
Reading comprehension: I certainly didn’t say "just" I said "not accounting".
the comment I made w.r.t. to "gift" is tax law
Moving the goalposts: material consideration and any conflict of interest arising isn’t tax law, it’s transparency (which is important to regulatory and trade practice law).
they are already many steps above others from an optics stand point.
Whataboutism—"what about those other reviewers, hey?"—is a logical fallacy, obviously. ASR makes special claims to ethical behaviour, I’m recommending transparency to support those claims. Interpreting this as "an attack" is typical of the defensiveness from ASR that many here experience and commented on. As noted, the moderator who did this in the ASR thread apologised. That’s open to you here also.
the review that Amir provides ... is of far more value, monetarily, to the company that provides the product, so the concept of "gift" is questionable
I give you something, you give me something. Absolutely a material consideration. And as you describe it, now you are supporting the material consideration argument and suggesting a quid pro quo! You have no idea what you are saying, do you? 😂
|
@thecarpathian
Why don’t we call it a draw and go out for ice cream...🍧
Great suggestion, and more enjoyable.
@nonoise
- what flavor?
- what make?
- how much?
- what kind of dish?
- cold or hot spoon to dish it out?
- toppings?
Just saying....
Haha, the argument would never end. 😅
|
@tsushima1
Only a totally self absorbed Narcissist would be so stupidly vain enough to admit to his and his familiars raison dêtre in posting on this forum.
Indeed, sublime post and basic insight in one.
Said narcissism used to take my breath away, but I ceased to be amazed hundreds of posts ago.
|
@kota1
Don’t try this at home kids!!
Are you saying you don't have a robot speaker shuffler at home in your oversized listening room? Or audio luminary Sean Olive on hand to give you pointers? What sort of committed audiophile are you?
|
@fair
The problem with ASR as of late is that such opportunity is not always given. A loud member, or a moderator, or a whole pack of them, publicly accuse an "inconvenient" member of disingenuity, of lack of knowledge, or of low intelligence, and then said member is immediately banned, with no way to defend himself there.
I don’t have the lengthy experience posting on ASR that you have, but I’ve certainly seen new members of subjectivist bent banned very quickly. And to put things in perspective, I’ve seen that many more times than I’ve seen an actual single- or double-blind test performed for or by ASR.
@amir_asr
There are very frequent blind tests posted by members. Here is a very recent one:
Amir uses a different dictionary from others "frequent" here means "every now and then".
That aside, I am NOT a scientist. Never claimed to be. Never want to be. I follow science just like your doctor does.
Perhaps the site would be better named Audio Medicine Review? 😊
@laoman
Here is the thing. A while ago I was looking around for a new DAC. I listened to about 8 and in no case was the cost of the DAC mentioned. I just sat in a chair and listened to the same music. One that I disregarded very quickly was the Topping.
While ASR-ers don’t actually perform DBT or similar nearly as often as they demand it of others, it is useful to consider what it is and why we should do them sometimes. If we take the DAC example, imagine if I were to do comparative listening test for DACs including a Topping? Now I’ve read ASR for a good while and watched enough of the videos so when I think of Topping I think of Amir. So how can I listen to a Topping knowingly and enjoy it? To give it a fair audition, I’ll need to disguise the brand.
|
